I notice dualistic type thinking among many atheists and theists alike. dualities such as,
Belief/fact
supernature/nature
faith/science
assumption/evidence
Such thinking assumes two realms. But are they real? or imaginary? If they are real, then the division between them should be knowable, clear, and distinct. Yes?
So, for those who believe in a division between belief and fact, what is the criterion that separates the two?
My personal belief is there is no division between belief and fact. Many have tried, but all have failed to articulate some criterion to separate the two. The import of this is clear: Atheists wish to see themselves, and wish other to see them as firmly in the realm of fact, nature, science, and evidence. I don't see it myself.
I used to believe in a division between belief and fact, but eventually realized the line between them was non-existent. Believing in a separation of belief and fact is belief some imaginary entity. Incidentally, the scientist who finally convinced me of this truth was an atheist.
However, if you, theist or atheist believe there is a real division between belief and fact, I'd like to hear it.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
stolen from Wikipedia:
"Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome."
For example, you and I might disagree on the color of an house, or which colors make it look better; but under normal circumstance we won't disagree on the wavelength of light it emits.
Interesting: "generally believed to be". Did you read the word "believed"? so I don't get the separation of belief and facts.
I believe that classical physics comes closest to the ideal of objective knowledge. "objective knowledge" meaning as in your quote, independent of the observer. Out side of classical physics such an ideal is unreachable. Even in classical physics, the ideal is not precisely reached. Scientists may disagree on the accuracy of equipment used to measure light wavelength for example. Equipment design and quality of components used may introduce error. Too, the accurate use of such equipment relies on the competence of the scientist. So measuring wavelength assumes the of the equipment is valid, and assumes it is working properly, assumes the competence of the scientist, assumes a margin of error built into the machine is inconsequential. So even measuring wavelength relies on assumptions. Given such problems, facts about wavelength are still to some degree reliant on the assumptions of the knowing subject, so are not purely objective. Too, it isn't valid to generalize from classical physics to all of science. Science outside of classical physics does not get as close to the ideal of objective knowledge that is achieved in classical physics. All knowledge relies to a degree, on faith in the assumptions made by the knower. Hence, there is no division between faith and knowledge.
Moreover, science speaks to how the universe works, and does not speak to the origins of it.
When some atheist claims a creator God does not exist, he is not appealing validly to science, he is merely stating his assumptions that he has faith in.
Apollo - "so I don't get the separation of belief and facts."
Here is an example:
belief - Pepsi tastes better than Coke.
fact - Pepsi has more calories than Coke.
If you can't tell the difference between these statements, you are beyond reach.
You are offering an illustration of what you believe to be an immutable fact, but you do not articulate a criterion that separates fact from belief in general. Determining Pepsi has more calories than Coke still relies on one or more assumptions. You have to personally participate in making such a determination. Establishing such facts always relies on the competence of the person, and the validity of the methods designed by some person, and the accuracy of the equipment used which is also designed by some person. The conclusion Pepsi has more calories than Coke relies on personal judgment.
I acknowledge that classical physics very nearly reaches the ideal of objective knowledge, but I don't see how that achievement of classical physics helps atheism. The measurement of calories in soft drinks, and light wavelength does not speak directly to the atheist claim, so it isn't clear to me why one would use light wavelength and calories in soft drinks to illustrate "facts" relevant to the atheist claim.
And getting to Atheism:
Atheism is a claim that God does not exist. That claim relies on the personal judgment of the believer.
So far all I see in your attempt to demonstrate a criterion that separates fact from belief is sophistry. You appeal to methods and equipment to determine wavelength of light, and to determine calories in soft drinks, but you don't follow through to show how that is relevant to the atheist faith God does not exist.
You see I have encountered atheists who claim atheism is based in scientific fact. So what are the facts? And what would make such facts as reliable as counting calories?
Apollo - "The conclusion Pepsi has more calories than Coke relies on personal judgment"
You live in a fantasy world if you think the number of calories contained in a substance is a matter of personal judgement/bias/opinion.
------------------
Apollo - "so it isn't clear to me why one would use light wavelength and calories in soft drinks to illustrate "facts" relevant to the atheist claim"
Maybe because I didn't?
------------------
Apollo - "Atheism is a claim that God does not exist"
I won't play the define atheism game with you. I don't think god is real, when I tell people that they call me an atheist. If you don't like it, complain to them, not me.
------------------
Apollo - "you don't follow through to show how that is relevant to the atheist faith God does not exist"
You asked a question, I answered it. What more do you want?
------------------
Apollo - "You see I have encountered atheists who claim atheism is based in scientific fact"
Then take it up with them.
Nyarlathotep,
All knowledge relies on the personal judgment of the knower. My judgment tells me, I don't know Pepsi has more calories than Coke because my only source is you, and that's hearsay. In order for me to reliably know Pepsi has more calories than Coke, I'd have to personally do the measurement. Then, in order for me to make the universal claim Pepsi has more calories than Coke, I'd have to personally do the measurement on all containers of Pepsi and Coke. And if the claim is for all time, I'd have to keep checking all containers for calorie content. Alternately, I'd have to who that it isn't possible for Pepsi or Coke to change their formula. I might mention that I read an article stating Coke adjusts the amount of sugar according to cater to regional/national tastes. But your claim, Pepsi has more calories than Coke assumes you have accounted for all the regional and nationa differences in the forumula. My guess is you never really did that, so you don't personally know Pepsi has more calories than Coke.
I think your stuff about facts vs beliefs is sophistry. Your universal claim Pepsi had more calories than Coke, is essentially groundless. its just you saying it. Why should I believe you? Moreover, you couldn't possibly check all cans of each product to verify your claim. And you couldn't prevent either company from changing their formula. Supposing you actually check one can of Pepsi vs one can of Coke for calorie content: generalizing from that sample to all samples is an assumption. Ergo, the universal claim is based on belief, not fact.
Ok, you don't think god is real. Nothing wrong with that. But you don't accept the label Atheist. OK. suit yourself.
What more do I want? I want those who do not think god is real to tell me is their thoughts in a realm of belief? or realm of fact? or some other world.
You see, Nyarlathotep, if I was an Atheist, this is what I'd say: I don't believe God exists, but I can't prove it; its just my faith. I don't see the downside in that. But I encounter Athiest who insist their perspective is backed indubitably by immutable fact. Why? What's the problem?
Apollo - "But you don't accept the label Atheist."
If you check my profile, you will see that I do accept it. I just don't debate the definition of it, especially with theists because it is pointless. No matter how much you attempt to narrow the definition of what an atheist is---to exclude everyone from that category---I still won't think god is real.
----------------------------
Apollo - " if I was an Atheist, this is what I'd say: I don't believe God exists, but I can't prove it..."
I don't think god exists, but I can't prove it.
I also can't prove:
Zeus doesn't exist.
Santa Claus doesn't exist.
The tooth faerie doesn't exist.
Cthulhu doesn't exist.
Big foot doesn't exist.
Jack Frost doesn't exist.
The three little pigs don't exist.
Rudolph the red nosed reindeer doesn't exist.
etc.
And yet I don't think they are real either...
I'm not trying to get you to believe god is real.
The question was, how do you separate fact from belief? You answer is Pepsi has more calories than Coke. But I only have you for a source on that, and I have no reason to believe you are a reliable source of information on that topic.
"All knowledge relies on the personal judgment of the knower."
Nonsense, the earth was always the same shape and never at the centre of the universe, and this was true independently of any belief any human or any number of humans held.
You're using the same tired theistic cliche of an argument from ignorance fallacy to try and reverse the burden of proof, because you believe a deity exists but can demonstrate no objective evidence for that belief. What anyone believes or disbelieves is irrelevant to that fact.
It's simply an apologetic argument that is in vogue and popularised byvapologists like William Lane Craig. It's woeful nonsense of course.
@Apollo
What can never be objectively verified is what we call belief. For example God. There is no way we can conduct any experiment on God. This rests in the realm of belief. Whereas, the errors in measurements in an experiment can't be labelled as 'belief' because the differences notwithstanding, we can still conduct measurements on the object in question. There is a clear line of separation between belief and facts. In the examples you cited about the differences arising due to errors in measuring devices etc... even if to be accepted at face value, can at best only be a conflict between subjectivity and objectivity... not belief and fact.
valiya s sajjad,
Strictly speaking, nothing can be objectively verified. (I came to that belief based on studying the writings of an atheist scientist.)
All knowledge relies on the judgment of a person.
Yes, I believe one can not conduct any experiment on God. Therefore, the Atheist claim, God does not exist, does not rely on experimentation.
Even so, some atheists have claimed their stance is factual. What is it that makes the central atheist claim a fact? What separates it from belief?
Apollo
Strictly speaking, nothing can be objectively verified.
Don’t you think that’s an extreme position to take? Take for example, the law of gravity. This law can be proven by observable experiments. If you conduct the same experiments and observe the same results as anybody else… then we call it objectively verified. All you have to do is conduct the same experiments and show that your results are different. You can thus disprove the law. This is what I mean by objective verification. But if you come up with a claim and there is no way we can put it to test, then it’s not objective. Therefore, the question is not whether our observations are influenced by our minds… the question is whether there is anything to observe in the first place. If you accept something as fact without even making an observation (experiment) – that’s what I call belief.
“Yes, I believe one can not conduct any experiment on God. Therefore, the Atheist claim, God does not exist, does not rely on experimentation.”
I agree with you. Supernatural entities can neither be proven nor be disproven.
“Even so, some atheists have claimed their stance is factual. What is it that makes the central atheist claim a fact? What separates it from belief?”
Atheists only accept as fact what can be observed (subjected to experimentation). However, this is only a metaphysical position… not a scientific position. All that science can say is “it doesn’t know” if there are truths beyond the observable physical reality.
valiya,
law of gravity: I have already said that the area of classical physics comes close to the ideal of objective knowledge. don't you get that?
"All that science can say is “it doesn’t know” if there are truths beyond the observable physical reality." I'm not convinced science says that. Science does not confine itself to observable reality. For example, the theory of evolution is taken to be a scientific fact, yet is is impossible for anyone to have observed the origin of life. I hope you can acdcept the following:
1. scientists are humans
2. by the time humans evolved, life had existed for millions of years,
therefore
3. Scientists could not have observed the origin of life.
The necessary implication is clear. Science accepts as fact some events it never observed (eg the origin of life) and can not possibly observe.
Your view of science and facts is positivist, a philosophical position that has been abandoned for decades and which science ignored anyway. It was a gaggle of mixed up philosophers who attempted to brainwash people about dubious notions of what a "fact" was. The claim that science only deals with observable reality is a big lie. Unfortunately that big lie lives on in the minds of many.
There is nothing wrong with being an atheist, but be a good one.
Atheists know that the origin of life was never observed by scientists. Atheists know that evolution is accepted by science as a fact. Yet atheists claim science only deals in observable fact. Those three items are incoherent. My position is, since science accepts evolution as a fact, and since science never observed the origin of life, the definition of "scientific fact" must include events that are unobservable, (e.g. the origin of life) and unverifiable by experiment.
I think my view on this matter is coherent, and your view is incoherent. So I think my view is reasonable, and yours is not.
Apollo
Thanks for your response.
First of all let me make it clear that I am NOT an atheist… rather a very strong theist.
However, i don’t think the best defense for ‘God’ is through proving that science and belief are some kind of muddled twins. We would be doing a gross injustice to both belief and science by taking that position. Both are two very different epistemologies serving two very different purposes.
“I have already said that the area of classical physics comes close to the ideal of objective knowledge. don't you get that?”
I get that. I agree with you. If I were to rank scientific knowledge in a hierarchy of its objectivity, I would go from physics, biology, sociology, anthropology and psychology. This of course is not an exhaustive list… but I hope you get the gist of what I mean. In that order we move from hard science to soft science.
However, in all of these sciences the first thing we have to agree is that there is a perceivable phenomenon that we are trying to make sense of. For example, we know that there is human body and that it functions in a particular way. When we study it we find out things about it that now helps us to live better lives. The reason that you take medicines when you fall sick is because you trust in the objectivity of medical science.
"I'm not convinced science says that. Science does not confine itself to observable reality. For example, the theory of evolution is taken to be a scientific fact, yet is impossible for anyone to have observed the origin of life.”
As I said, science is the attempt to explain an observable phenomenon within naturalistic causes. In the case of ‘evolution’ the phenomenon that is observed is similarity between species and the progression of life forms from simple to complex in the geological timeline. These are observable phenomena, which no one can refute. And the theory of evolution is an attempt to explain this phenomena. The question is how convincing is this explanation? Can it be verified through repeated experiments? I personally think the naturalistic explanation for evolution of life is implausible.
Here is an example from classical physics to explain my point better. Gravity is an observable phenomenon. All things fall to the ground. Newton explained it invoking ‘action at a distance’ or ‘force.’ However, that explanation was later superseded by Einstein’s general relativity, which invokes ‘curvature of time-space.’ A very different explanation. Therefore Newton has been proven wrong… but does that mean Newton was not being objective in his theory.
Similarly, evolution has to be respected as a scientific theory. It is indeed a work of great genius. But it still has too many open-ended questions, and gaping holes in it, to be acceptable. Moreover, being in the realm of anthropology, it is a very soft science.
“The necessary implication is clear. Science accepts as fact some events it never observed (eg the origin of life) and can not possibly observe.”
I think this is answered above.
I am not defending God.
No, you do not get it completely. All of your knowledge relies on your personal judgment. You do not possess any conscious knowledge that does not rely on your own evaluational and judgment. Therefore, you have no knowledge that can be considered objective.
There is no duality in the universe, and there is no "muddled twins".
Physics and chemistry is not objective. All the knowledge any physicist has relies on his own personal judgment. The only facts a person, scientist or otherwise, accepts as facts are done so on the basis of their personal judgment.
The key to knowledge is then, honing one's personal judgment.
I am not convinced medical science is objective. Lots of "medicine" is just profit motive marketing hype, so no, I don't trust in the objectivity of medicine. Any medical researcher brings to his research his own presuppositions, assumptions, and world view and his skill or lack of skill, as well as the degree to which his personal judgment is reliable. There is no "objective" guarantee that any medical researcher is correct in their conclusions.
A correct diagnosis, and a correct course of treatment relies on the personal judgment of the practitioner. There is no "objective" guarantee such a practitioner is correct.
You consistently appeal to an "external, fixed, objective" criteria for truth. But it doesn't exist. There is no criteria for truth outside the person. 'Objective" knowledge means the criteria for knowledge is "outside the person". But there is no such thing. It is a figment of the imagination.
You say "we" know that the human body functions in a particular way. Who is "we". How do you know what other people know or don't know? Lots of people decline to take immunization shots for flu because they are not convinced they work or that there is a net benefit. You over simplify things in an attempt to convince me of a non-existant external objective criterion for truth.
Your disagreement with orthodox science over the theory of evolution is an example of differing personal judgment.
I brought up the theory of evolution to show that science commits it self to facts even though such facts were never observed, and can not be experimented with. And the reason I did that is some non-theists on this site have claimed facts are arrived at via direct observation and experimentation. they further claimed that atheism is based in such facts. I dare say they are mistaken and the fact that evolutionary theory is accepted fact for the origin life is an example in point. Facts are not arrived at purely by direct observation and experimentation.
In any case, you differ with orthodox science on the matter of evolution, which is an example of what I am talking about when I say all knowledge relies on the personal judgment of the knower. There is no objective external criteria for truth which you and orthodox
science appeal to in order to solve your differences. Your personal judgment is different than their personal judgment and there is no criteria external to both parties to solve that difference in view point.
My argument is this; since science can take as fact some primordial life giving soup, which was never observed, and never experimented with, as fact, then theists can take as fact some things they never saw or experiment ed with.
I don't really accept your definition of science. Broadly, science is about achieving understanding: and that is broad enough to include the so called humanities/social sciences as well as the so called natural sciences. There is no real ontological division between natural science and other sciences.
Newton and gravity. He was not objective and neither was Einstein. Newton arrived at close, but incorrect conclusions because was *assuming* an fallacious framework for knowledge. He made a correct inference from within a false framework. That is not objectivity. Einstein too assumed a framework and the inferences from that assumed framework gave better results. It isn't clear if Einstein's assumed framework will stand up over time.
However, all scientists *assume* a framework for knowledge within which they make inferences. If the inference does not stand up, then they made an error in reasoning, or their framework for knowledge is mistaken.
Other people, outside of physics think the same way. Except for the truly insane, we all have a framework for knowledge that we *assume* and within which we draw inferences.
So when one thinks someone's inference is incorrect we make that evaluation based on the assumption that our own framework for knowledge is reliable, and our own inferences are correct.
I'm with you, to a degree. Your own bias will always influence what you "know". I have no argument with that. The problem with 'medicine' is that it is devised to fight evolving organisms. It's part of the reason we "know" that creatures evolve. We try to destroy them and they evolve around our attempts.
Science has brought about a laboratory derived form of insulin (a hormone required for metabolism) that keeps diabetics (people that don't produce insulin on their own because their own immune system has attacked the cells that builds it) alive everyday. I am one of those diabetics. When I was diagnosed with diabetes it was a relief because I knew at the time that I was dying, I just didn't know why. When the doctors brought my glucose (blood-sugar) back to normal levels I "knew" they saved my life. It wasn't like they said "Here, take this shot, it will help" and I just took their word for it, they SAVED MY LIFE literally. I don't need them or you to tell me they did it, and I don't need to "believe" that I will die without it. I "know" because I know what it feels like to be rapidly dying in response to my metabolism burning itself out. I've been there, but I don't need to die to prove it, enough diabetics have died to convince me.
But you don't need to know this. It doesn't affect you in the least. So, what you "know" about my disease and the doctors being full of "hype" is negligible compared to the twenty years I've lived because of them. But that's just my opinion of what you "know" and my evidence means nothing to you.
These "facts" you speak of are actually "theory" and there is a fundamental difference. We derive these theories based on the facts we are presented with. My theory is that I will die without insulin. I have supporting evidence for this theory but I haven't actually proven it.
The fact is evolution exists because we observe bacteria evolving and constantly upgrade our arsenal against it. The theory is a random soup of acids caused life to begin. Not everyone accepts that theory, but everyone accepts the fact.
"All of your knowledge relies on your personal judgment. You do not possess any conscious knowledge that does not rely on your own evaluational and judgment. Therefore, you have no knowledge that can be considered objective."
That's just your personal judgement, and so can't be considered objective.
"Physics and chemistry is not objective."
There are two of them, thus you mean "are not objective", and you're talking through your subjective arse.
"The key to knowledge is then, honing one's personal judgment."
Keep honing champ.
"I don't trust in the objectivity of medicine"
I don't rust your subjective opinion, and since medical science produces consistent successful results, you're talking through your subjective arse.
"It isn't clear if Einstein's assumed framework will stand up over time."
Troll or moron, hard to say, but clearly this is nonsense even by the standard he has set thus far. It's right up there with breezy accusing Cyber of "lending out her brain" by accepting scientific facts like evolution.
"I brought up the theory of evolution to show that science commits it self to facts even though such facts were never observed, and can not be experimented with. And the reason I did that is some non-theists on this site have claimed facts are arrived at via direct observation and experimentation."
The evidence has been directly observed, and still can be, genetics, fossil record, even speciation has been observed in a laboratory. Again you're talking through your subjective theistic arse.
I can't be bothered to plough through the rest of his verbiage, either he knows he's posting garbage, and so is trolling, or he is too stupid to bother with. My gamblers instinct can get no closer than 50/50 on this one.
Apollo: "you BELIEVE one can not conduct any experiment on God". It is not a fact. Question, why do you believe that?
"What can never be objectively verified is what we call belief. "
Nonsense, I believe the earth is colder and smaller than the sun. Are you saying this can't be objectively verified? The only way humans can interact with reality is by forming beliefs about it. This doesn't make them necessarily true, or false. The more objective evidence we can demonstrate for a belief the more likely it is to be valid.
No objective evidence has been demonstrated for any deity, thus I don't believe the claim.
Science by comparison is a method that requires the most vigorously objective principles of validation. It treats all claims the same, and therefore whether it's germ theory gravity or evolution we can be confident that the evidence supporting one theory has been as rigorously and objectively scrutinised as the others that science considers valid.
"There is no way we can conduct any experiment on God. "
This is only true if a deity is defined in such a way as to make the claim unfalsifiable, and unfalsifiable claims be definition can teach us nothing. They are also easy to create. If we can know nothing about the nature or existence of something then this is called agnosticism, and it is absurd to believe a claim you can now nothing about. Of course monotheistic religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism all make claims that are falsifiable, they just ignore the results when those claims are tested and fail. Like prophesy and inteecessory prayer for example.
"Even so, some atheists have claimed their stance is factual"
Some people who identify as atheist also identify as gnostic...some as agnostic. So yes, some do. Note the word 'some' in the preceding sentence, it's important.
Question: you said nothing can be objectively verified. Does that include verification based on all data that One can gather using the close to 20 senses humans have?
Noting can be objectively verified. Explanation: The object is the thing studied, the thing one want so know about. The subject is the being with senses, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, presuppositions, who wants to know about the object.
The knower-subject usually a person, but can be another animal, necessarily participates in the act of knowing. It isn't possible to know something and not be involved in the act of knowing. One of the acts of knowing is using ones judgment about what are the relevant facts. For example, Pepsi has more calories than Coke. How could anyone know that? maybe that claim was made on television, or the Internet. But since when are such sources reliable? We need more to say we know Pepsi has more calories than Coke. Nyarlathotep said so. But why should I believe him? It makes that claim on some corporate documentation. But why are corporate claims the ultimate source of facts? So, to call it an objective fact perhaps some scientist actually checks directly the calorie content of a can of Pepsi vs a can of Coke and finds that can of Pepsi has more calories than that can of Coke - assuming, of course, our methodology and equipment used is sound and reliable. But how do we know it is the same for all cans of each product? We don't objectively know. We can't check every can. So we generalize from a small sample to every can. That generalization requires an assumption we can not prove. And that assumption is a degree of faith.
Everything we think we know relies to some degree on unprovable assumptions. There is no universal truth that can be objectively known.
When an atheist claims there is no god, he is making a claim to a universal truth with no foundation to the claim. There is nothing wrong with that. But things get strange when anyone claims science backs atheism and atheism is a proven scientific fact.
So to sum up your question is, can our senses know things purely objectively? No. The knower-subject participates in the act of knowing by bringing to it his own preconceived system of beliefs, therefore there is always some element of subjectivity in all knowing.
Apollo - "There is no universal truth that can be objectively known."
Does that include your statement itself? LOL
Yes it does include my statement itself, obviously. You see I'm not trying to prove universal truth, you are. And you are using an outmoded, long abandoned flawed method.
I say again, most of what I believe on these issues came from studying the writings of an Atheist. He's the deepest thinker I ever came across. A very sincere fellow he was.
You are a foundational thinker and that approach was scuttled and sunk decades ago. You need to give up your faith in some non-existent Santa Claus foundation for your perspective. Your claimed factual foundation supposedly proving your views is your delusion.
Some of you Atheists are very proud of your claim to scientific veracity of all your beliefs, but when I ask you to explain it, you haul out some old decayed philosophical idea of "fact" that not even science paid any attention to.
"What separates belief from fact? " Evidence
OK, define evidence.
The reason I started this thread is because some atheists claimed that atheists deal in immutable fact, and all their claimed are derived from such facts, so therefore all claims of atheists are indubitably true.
So please, be reasonable, and show me the method for coming up with the immutable facts that make the atheist perspective indubitably true.
I'm not wasting my time with your word games. That is all theists have now, (Willam Lane Craig, Matt Slick, Sye Ten Bruggencate etc.) the fact you can't figure out the truth is your problem.Sorry, I don't believe the Noah's ark fable/lie any more than I do talking snakes and a multitude of other ridiculous stories in the bible. If it you feel it important to believe in that nonsense that is your business. You claim to be a christian, sorry you believe in lies. Maybe some day you'll figure out the truth.
"What separates belief from fact?"
Fact is something which you CAN see test and verify multiple times.
It has a very HIGH degree of confidence in its validity.
Belief is the opposite, it is something which you CANNOT see test and verify multiple times.
It has a LOW degree of confidence, when you base any claim on a belief.
Eg:
I know for a fact that I have internet right now.
I believe that I will have internet tomorrow.
The difference is obvious.
You need to be a moron not to see the difference.
Jeff,
I'm glad you acknowledged you have a belief (about having Internet tomorrow). Getting an atheist to admit to any belief has been a challenge. Your claim to a fact about Internet right now is in a category similar to classical physics. I already acknowledged that category comes close to the ideal of objective knowledge, but doesn't strictly speaking exactly match it.
Lets move on to other areas, apart from classical physics, and similar areas.
It isn't clear to me how your distinction between fact and belief helps to justify the atheist perspective. Having an Internet connection or not, doesn't seem directly relevant to atheism and theism.
You see, "I know for a fact that I have internet right now.' is a fact for you, but it doesn't (to me) support the atheist perspective one way or the other. I'm looking for facts vs beliefs that support the atheist perspective.
You see I hear from atheists that their perspective is fact based. But Pepsi has more calories than Coke, I have internet right now, and so on doesn't seem relevant to atheism.
"Lets move on to other areas, apart from classical physics, and similar areas."
So you admit you are a moron for not acknowledge this very obvious difference from start?
"but eventually realized the line between them was non-existent."
"I'm looking for facts vs beliefs that support the atheist perspective."
"Having an Internet connection or not, doesn't seem directly relevant to atheism and theism."
fact:
you cannot verify with testable evidence that a theistic god exists right now.
(i know for a fact that i have internet right now)
belief:
you wish that a theistic god that you were told about, exists.
(i wish i will have internet tomorrow)
"You see I hear from atheists that their perspective is fact based."
(Your bias that atheists make the claim(believe) that god does not exist is only in your head)
It is fact based because it abstains from making a judgment without testable evidence.
It lacks belief.
Jeff,
All your examples are in areas irrelevant to atheism. But anyway, it is possible to think you have an internet connection when you don't. when my connection gets dropped, I don't know it exactly at the time it disconnects. I only know it later, when I attempt to connect to a site e and it fails.Even so, the illustration you use is irrelevant to the overall context of atheism.
Move on to facts about the origin of life. Obviously you did not observe the origin of life. so what scientific facts do you have about the origin of life?
Personally I believe in evolution. I take it as a fact even though it is impossible for any person, scientist or other wise to have observed the origin of life.
Pages